Quote: SmokeyTA "for some reason, in RL, it seems to have been decided that the less we spend the better. Which is stupid. It really is.
If Dr Koukash was trying to make Salford sustainable at the level they are now, then I would be worried. Salford arent ever going to be sustainable with such low crowd figures. Bringing in top quality players and big name players is a valid and worthwhile way of increasing those figures.
It isnt a given that a club spending less is more sustainable, and it is incredibly naive to say it is. RL seems the only game to be almost actively against investment in it.
Clubs dont go bankrupt by simply spending more. The reasons clubs go bankrupt is just as much down to not bringing enough in as it is to spending too much.'"
Where is this sanity coming from ?!?
Spot on.
All this "make them sustainable first" is rubbish. It sounds very nice, but all sustainability means is making outgoings matching income over the long-term (it's fine to make losses during periods of investment - that's pretty much the definition of "investment" ).
How would these people propose to make Salford "sustainable first"?
How would you build a factory if you had to make it "sustainable first"? Start selling matchsticks until you had enough for a few bricks, etc.?
I have no problem at all with rules to help prevent clubs bankrupting themselves (noting that, at the end of the day, bad management is always capable of bankruptcy, whatever rules exist ), but those rules shouldn't be structured stop a rich person investing a ton of money in a club. Just so long as the investment isn't in the form of debt. And I'm sorry, but rich people aren't going to do it "for the good of the game", they want their chosen club to do well, and to put superstars on the pitch. Does Ambrovich do it for the sake of the Premier League?
As to the other problem - a rich club buying all the best players - you just put physical limits in to stop this. I've thought something like 13 on whatever you like, the rest on no more than £50k, but your £1M + 5 on whatever is perfectly good too. Even the 13 best players in the world won't guarantee total dominance - by definition the 2nd best 13 are somewhere else, and its highly unlikely you'll have more than 10 stars fit at any one time anyway.
